Delhi High Court
Shiksha Bharati Educational ... vs Delhi Development Authority on 23 March, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. In these proceedings review of judgment dated 14.3.2005 in WP(C) No.4931/2003, has been sought for. By that judgment and order, a direction was issued to the DDA to process the case of the petitioner and complete formalities such as issuing allotment letter and handing over possession of the plot, as per its entitlement in terms of the DDA's decision in 1997, within 8 weeks.
2. It has been urged and contended in support of the Review Petition that the judgment requires to be modified or reviewed since it did not take into considerations certain material factors.
3. It is contended that the petitioner had sought for allotment of land, to shift a school; it is already in possession of certain land and it has in fact encroached an area of 1250 sq.yds belonging to the DDA. It has also been averred and contended that the location of the petitioner's school was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act but land could not be acquired on account of stay order in WP(C) No.1860/1986. That writ petition was later withdrawn. It is also contended that the judgment is premised upon recommendations of an Institutional Allotment Committee dated 17.1.1997 which does not amount belong to a decision, by the DDA.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also seen the judgment dated 14.3.2005. As far as the first issue of linkage between allotment of land and shifting of the school is concerned, the judgment under review had noticed the stand of the DDA at Para 9. The Court had also noticed the order of 24.8.2000 disposing of WP(C) 6484/98 in which the issue of encroachment had been dealt with. The Court had, in that order dated 24.8.2000 protected the petitioner from dispossession and demolition of structure, (perhaps keeping in view the fact that it houses a school) till the representation of the petitioner was decided by the Commissioner (Lands). The contention between linkage sought to be made between the strip of 1250 sq. yards of the land in the existing plot and the allotment therefore was clearly noticed. In this view, I am of the opinion that without complying with the directions in WP(C) No.6484/98, the respondent cannot withhold allotment. In any case there was no averment in the counter affidavit filed by the review petitioner in CW.4931/2003 or in any other material on record in support of what is now contended, in these review proceedings.
5. As far as the issue with regard to the previous Land Acquisition proceedings is concerned, this Court had clearly noticed it; however, no contention was raised that such notification had the affect of dis-entitling the petitioner for allotment of land or shifting of the school. I am therefore of the view that such a contention cannot be now raised for the first time. The plea that the petitioner's allotment cannot be made only on the basis of the recommendations of the Institutional Allotment Committee, to my mind is simplistic. The judgment has detailed how the proposal to allot the land originally made in 1992 lingered for more than six years and apart from insisting on issuance of fresh sponsorship certificate and requiring furnishing bank guarantees for higher amounts, no new fact or consideration was taken into account. In the light of these and having regard to the plea put forth by the DDA, a direction to allot the land was made. That cannot be now reviewed in these proceedings. The only other contention in the review petition namely, that the sponsorship was for shifting of the school was considered in the judgment in Para 14.
6. It is well-settled that review jurisdiction does not extent to re-appreciating facts which existed when the judgment was delivered or considering arguments that could have been, but were not, made. It is also not a disguised appeal or fresh exercise of original jurisdiction.
7. Having regard to the limited parameters of review proceedings, I am satisfied that no ground has been made out for reviewing the judgment dated 14.3.2005. This review petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
